Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Immigration Reform Caucus

last updated: January 29, 2013

Please note: IPS Right Web neither represents nor endorses any of the individuals or groups profiled on this site.

The House Immigration Reform Caucus—not to be confused with a similarly named pro-immigration group—was established in May 1999 by then-Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), a former House member and presidential candidate who promoted a far-right agenda on both domestic and foreign policy while in office. At its peak, the mostly Republican caucus had over 100 members, or a quarter of all House members.[1] In 2012, the caucus claimed to have 93 members.[2]

According to an agenda posted on Tancredo's congressional website, the caucus was founded "to review current immigration policy, to initiate new immigration policy, and to create a much-needed forum in Congress to address both the positive and negative consequences of immigration." The agenda touted the caucus' work in "addressing the explosive growth in illegal immigration, reversing the growth in legal immigration," and opposing various provisions it said would provide "amnesty" to undocumented immigrants in the United States.[3]

The statement also promoted the idea, sharply disputed by migration scholars, that irregular migration represents a terrorist threat to the country. "With the events of September 11," it read, "the caucus [has] continued to establish and emphasize the link between open borders, unregulated immigration, and the potential for terrorism."[4]

Tancredo repeated this connection on his 2008 presidential campaign website. In a statement proclaiming a "clash of civilizations" between the United States and its purported enemies, Tancredo claimed that "Tomorrow's attacker is more likely to board a commercial airliner bound for the U.S. with a tourist or student visa—or he may simply walk across our porous southern or northern border carrying a device in his backpack."[5]

When Tancredo left Congress to focus on his presidential bid, he designated Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-CA) to lead the caucus. Under Bilbray, the caucus focused on the purported "relationship between border security, national security, illegal immigration, border violence, contraband and illegal drugs," removing references to the 9/11 attacks and focusing more narrowly on promoting border control and opposing "amnesty" and other government provisions for undocumented immigrants.[6]

Some prominent members of the caucus have continued to link undocumented immigrants to terrorism, often invoking explicitly anti-Islamic rhetoric. A December 2012 blog post by the pro-immigration group Imagine 2050 accused the caucus of "providing representation for the organized Islamophobia movement." It highlighted the role of two high-profile members in particular, Reps. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and Louie Gohmert (R-TX). The two members were part of a group of five Republican House members to send a letter to U.S. government agencies demanding an investigation into alleged "Muslim Brotherhood infiltration" into the Obama administration. In the ensuing media coverage, Gohmert appeared on the radio show of the controversial neoconservative Frank Gaffney, where he claimed that "the only way you can explain the horrendous decisions that were so completely wrongheaded would be if this administration had a bunch of Muslim Brotherhood members giving them advice." The post also recalled Gohmert's widely ridiculed insistence that undocumented immigrants have "terror babies" in the United States in order to provide U.S. citizenship to their offspring, who can later use their status to wage attacks on the United States.[7]

Bilbray left Congress after losing his 2012 reelection race in a district redrawn to include more Hispanic voters.[8] Imagine 2050 called the result a "major setback" for the caucus, but warned that some caucus members, including incoming Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and others, would be well placed to thwart any potential moves to the center by House Republicans after a 2012 election in which the party was hamstrung by its "hemorrhaging" support among Latino voters.[9]

The Immigration Reform Caucus has been closely linked over the years with immigration restrictionist organizations like NumbersUSA and the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), which Imagine 2050 has deemed a "white nationalist" organization that has "endeavored to eradicate immigration to the United States and to systematically limit civil liberties."[10] Former caucus leader Brian Bilbray himself was previously a registered lobbyist for FAIR and served as a co-chair of the organization's advisory board. Noting the caucus' connections to groups like FAIR and others, a 2007 report by the Center for a New Community characterized the congressional organization as a "highly ideological caucus, with its nativism one piece of a larger far right and ultra-nationalist whole. While not every HIRC member fits this mold," it warned, "enough evidence exists to conclude that more than just the number of H1-B visas is at stake here."[11]

Share This Profile:

Please note: IPS Right Web neither represents nor endorses any of the individuals or groups profiled on this site.

Featured Profiles

The American Islamic Congress (AIC) is a controversial Muslim advocacy organization with ties to right-wing and anti-Islamic groups. AIC has received funding from the Donors Capital Fund, a group that the Center for American Progress has described as the “lifeblood of the Islamophobia network in America.” Notorious “pro-Israel” megadonor Sheldon Adelson is also a backer of AIC, along with fellow billionaire Seth Klarman. The group, which also receives government funding, has been accused of serving as a “faithful arm of soft American power in the Middle East.”

Billionaire hedge fund investor Seth Klarman is a prolific funder of an array of rightist “pro-Israel” groups. He has supported The Israel Project, the Middle East Forum, and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, among other groups. Klarman also invests in Israeli media, having established his own newspaper, the Times of Israel, in 2012. He has bemoaned growing sympathy for the Palestinians, stating: “In the West, ‘Palestinianism’—the notion that an innocent, indigenous people suffers a senseless, cruel oppression by the Jews of Israel (who ought to know better) threatens to become the standard view.”

Ron Dermer, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, has been in the spotlight for his role in organizing—and then failing to properly disclose—a controversial speech by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Congress. The surprise announcement of Netanyahu’s speech, which was first made by House Speaker John Boehner shortly after President Obama’s State of the Union address, spurred widespread criticism, with the White House calling it a “breach of protocol” because it had not been notified of the invitation in advance. One observer, referring to Dermer’s role in the affair, said: “In almost any other case, such bad faith and duplicity would lead a host country to ask that an ambassador be withdrawn.”

David Albright and hisInstitute for Science and International Security are widely regarded as important apolitical members of the nonproliferation community in the United States. However, a growing number of writers and experts have begun criticizing Albright’s work, particularly on Iran, and some of his critics say that he has made inaccurate claims about their work in order to counter their criticisms.

During his recent confirmation hearings, new Pentagon chief Ashton Carter gave “every indication that he would be a hard-liner at the Pentagon and a strong counterweight to administration doves.” He said that he would be “inclined” to send “defensive arms” to Ukraine and would resist efforts to speed up the closure of Guantanamo Bay. After his first trip to Afghanistan as secretary of defense, he announced the United States may slow its withdrawal of troops and keep more troops in the country than previously planned.